(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단5369846

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단5369846

대여금

Text

1. The lawsuit against the defendant A shall be dismissed;

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. and Defendant C Co., Ltd. are jointly and severally liable for damages to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the lawsuit against Defendant A

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant A sought the performance of joint and several liability obligations for attempted funds, such as the statement in the grounds for the claim, and the defendant A asserts that the above obligation was also exempted because he/she was granted immunity from the court.

B. (1) Determination (1) around February 2013, Defendant A filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Changwon District Court (2013Haak29, 2013, 228); the said court rendered a declaration of bankruptcy against Defendant A around April 2013; the court rendered a decision of immunity on November 4, 2013; and the said decision of immunity became final and conclusive on November 19, 2013 is recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

Thus, Defendant A, barring any special circumstance, exempted Defendant A from liability for the joint and several several liability obligations of this case under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the Plaintiff lost the ability to file a lawsuit.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant A knew of the existence of the debt amount after the completion of the distribution in the discretionary auction procedure and sent a reminder to the defendant A to pay the debt amount, he did not enter it in the creditor list in bad faith, he did not exempt the liability.

On this point, Defendant A argues that the above obligation was extinguished upon the repayment of all the obligations, and that the obligation was not entered in the creditor list.

Article 566 (proviso) 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter such claim in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Article.

참조조문

-채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.16 2016가단61472

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.10.24 2017가단3103

-대전지방법원논산지원 2017.10.19 2017가단1496

-부산지방법원 2015.06.12 2014나46454

-전주지방법원 2017.11.29 2017가단18349